- Are you smart or stupid? Take the test! Not scientific, but amusing nonetheless.
- Another "interesting" application of IQ (Warning: photos of swastikas). Data is rather old here, but I'd be surprised if these correlations don't still hold up.
- Fish may be more logical than the subjects of the previous link.
- Cognitive Dissonance had a birthday. And I forgot to send a card. I'm exactly 10 years and three days younger than cognitive dissonance.
- New book chronicles the rise of statistical measurement of Americans. Does Casual Fridays get a chapter?
- Even if you're not an alcoholic, drinking too much is still bad for you.
- Completely unrelated to the above link: Do young children understand irony?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I must admit that, after having taken it easy over the last few days, when the time came to sit down and get back into the swing of things, I had a bit of a hard time. No, it's not just blogging. That's actually a rather minor component of the whole malaise that descended upon me like a shroud.…
In provoking the emotions of fear and anger among non-believers, the Dawkins-Hitchens PR campaign motivates many atheists to be ever more vocal in attacking and complaining about religion. Yet does this PR campaign reach beyond the base, convincing Americans to give up their collective "delusions…
Very young children learn better from photos. When they are read to from a picture book describing how to make a rattle, 18-months-old do better at trying to make the rattle when the book had realistic photos compared to line drawings. I've always found instructions that use photos very difficult…
My posts below on IQ, politics & religion resulted in a fair amount of blogospheric response, and weird comments. A few quick points
1) I think results on standardized tests are informative and correlate reasonably with a host of life outcomes. If you don't think they do, that's fine, I don't…
I'm only 23% smarter than average :( LOL 23% smarter than the average person that took that test. Who are they? How old? What is their background? ...?
Heh.. Yeah, plus the whole percentage calculation is completely arbitrary. As far as I can tell, all they're doing is giving back your score as a percentage of the mean (minus 100 percent), which, of course, is meaningless.
I got 28.9% (24), but I'm Swedish, and that test was quite US-centric. (That's kind of a lame excuse; I do admit I should have known who that US president was.)
"The average intelligence quotient (IQ) of all members of the human race is 100 on the Stanford-Binet scale, as illustrated in the bell curves in the figure below. The average IQ of racists is up to 4 IQ points less than this" is most likely incorrect, for they've probably used an IQ scale normalized on the population of some high-IQ nation, not the world as a whole. As the racists in these studies are most likely from high-IQ nations, they should have an IQ well above the world average even if they get a score of 96 when compared to their compatriots. Also: since some of those studies were done back when racism was fairly mainstream, I'd say that the results shouldn't be used to draw conclusions about present-day conditions.
I tend to agree with you -- but then again, since racism is less prevalent today than in the 1940s in Western nations, I'd submit that the effect may be even more pronounced.